Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, November 27, 2016

After a bruising presidential election featuring the two least liked major-party candidates in recent history, more than 8-in-10 Americans say the country is more deeply divided on major issues this year than in the past several years, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. Less than half, 40%, say that [Donald] Trump's win means he has a mandate to pursue the agenda his supporters favor, while 53% say that since he didn't win the popular vote, he should get behind an agenda that might attract new supporters.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

In the wake of a surprising election night loss, Democrats express greater dissatisfaction with the way democracy in the U.S. is working than do Republicans (63% of Democrats are dissatisfied vs. 47% of Republicans), but some of the Republican Party's core supporters express deeper dissatisfaction than the GOP as a whole.

Among white evangelicals, 60% say they are dissatisfied, 62% of rural Americans say the same, and whites without college degrees, a typically GOP-leaning group which broke heavily for Trump in the recent election, are broadly dissatisfied (61% vs. 52% among whites who hold college degrees).

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The demos should have gone to the voting booths.

#1 | Posted by kudzu at 2016-11-27 10:45 AM | Reply

Rcade, if it is not too trollish, I want to comment tangentially on this 'dissatisfaction'.

While Americans are becoming less and less intelligent (it's true, look at the stats), and since the vast majority of uneducated people elected Trump (also true, look it up), one can only be left with one conclusion - when the majority of the people are uneducated, they will vote for the candidate that gives them shiney objects to play with, even if those objects are lies.

But do not blame the unintelligent. They are uneducated for a reason (and it's not completely their fault). We sell education in this country as if it were a luxury item, we sell it by the pound (or credit hour), when it would be completely possible to give every single American an advanced education for free (paid for by the gov't), at the small cost of one fighter jet program, and we would have enough left over to pay off every mortgage in America.

But instead we insist on giving that money to the fat cats, war moungers an oil barons. Then, when they crash America, what do we have to fall back on? The enlightenment of our educated population? No, we get what we have now.

Now, even in our current system, if the economy wasn't broken, Americans would do what they have always done, pay for their own advanced education (like I am doing now, but I am lucky, I make a lot of money and can afford it). But, now the poor can't do that, thus insuring even more uneducated people. Most of the uneducated are barely treading water economically.

This is what doomed the Democrats. They ignored their own issues and instead focused on extant minority social issues. Most people do not care about social issues when they are struggling with the basic necessities of life. And they are not smart enough to know that the Trump's of the world are the cause of their predicament to start with.

#2 | Posted by kudzu at 2016-11-27 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

While Americans are becoming less and less intelligent (it's true, look at the stats), and since the vast majority of uneducated people elected Trump (also true, look it up),

LOL....The mass majority of uneducated people elect every president!

#3 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 11:20 AM | Reply

Nice post Kud, a true independent thinker.

#4 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 11:24 AM | Reply

LOL....The mass majority of uneducated people elect every president!
#3 | Posted by Crassus

Obama....TWICE

#5 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2016-11-27 11:26 AM | Reply

and never did I see the other party bashing the electors like they were beneath elections. Hmmm...now the dnc are standing on stupid people voted for trump.

Must be nice sitting so high on the cloud while losing. Kind of wonder why that would be?

#6 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 11:53 AM | Reply

.... and we were so 'undivided' before Trump's election, right?

#7 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-27 11:56 AM | Reply

@ Kudzu

You're not really saying anything new -- no offense.

People like Mike Lofgren (book: 'The Party is Over') and Matt Taibbi have been saying these things repeatedly. And I'm sure there's plenty of voices before Lofgren and Taibbi who also have been saying these things.

The one thing you didn't mention is the word "dysfunction". Our country's politics is an exercise of dysfunction. This dysfunction comes from many places, like peoples lack of knowledge as you explained. But it also comes from the fact that collectively we are selfish and greedy, and that isn't so much the fault of the politicians as it is the fault of the people.

The late great George Carlin says it way better than I could ever say it ...

George Carlin - The Public Sucks
www.youtube.com
[3:15]

#8 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2016-11-27 12:08 PM | Reply

They are uneducated for a reason (and it's not completely their fault).

It's mostly their fault. There are 4,000 two- and four-year universities and colleges in this country. Government-backed student loans are available to attend all of them. If you want an education in this country it has never been more available.

There also is online learning and the Internet, which bring education to the masses in a way that past generations could only dream of.

Are many schools too expensive? Yes. Should we consider free tuition? Yes.

But higher education is available in this country to anyone who wants one and is willing to work. I paid my way through loans and a few grants at four schools, culminating in a degree from the University of North Texas. I got skills I've used ever since, and now my sons are in a position through their hard work to get into better schools than I did. We've been pre-paying tuition for years through a Florida state program.

As for the Democrats, we won the popular vote by over two million votes and lost the election by around 100,000 combined votes in a few Rust Belt states. It happens. People will say we're doomed and destroyed forever because we lost. They were saying it about the GOP in 2008 and 2012 after it lost.

I will be glad when the Traditional Period of Overreactions is over.

To everyone: No, the election did not prove every theory you have about the American electorate.

#9 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-27 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

While Americans are becoming less and less intelligent (it's true, look at the stats),

Not true, we have become incredibly better at abstract thought, (its true, look it up) ....

#2 | POSTED BY KUDZU

Your post is a reflection of your own experience and values, and you are imposing them on America.

You confuse having a college education and being educated. This clearly isn't the case today. Some people are made to read books, others by doing. Why can't those that DO also be "intelligent".

If the educated are so intelligent, why didn't they know they wouldn't win? Why didn't they try to help the middle class?

I view educated democrats, as what Nassim Taleb calls the "intellectual yet idiot" class, you can be included with that group if you'd like.

But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the "intelligentsia" can't find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren't intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities  --  but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.fbjb887ue

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-27 12:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

People will say we're doomed and destroyed forever because we lost.

I feel Democrats are doomed because the have no leader, or a pool of leaders to choose from. Not for some systemic reasoning.

How do you top the first Black President, with a woman, after that ? LatinX? Homosexual? Transgender? Black woman?

These, unfortunately are the only qualities that matter when the Democrats look for leadership... not skill.

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-27 12:13 PM | Reply

I view educated democrats, as what Nassim Taleb calls the "intellectual yet idiot" class, you can be included with that group if you'd like.

We don't need to hear about your inferiority complex.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-27 12:17 PM | Reply

#10 - good point. some of my most frustrating moments are when i realize that an education DID NOT bring an individual to a higher level of knowledge or understanding.

Over thanksgiving, I had to spend thirty minutes trying to tell a college educated man the difference between 'Communism' and 'Socialism'. Okay fine, i can give him the benefit of a doubt, maybe he was out that day. But after hearing it, his 'dissatisfaction' with Obama would still not let him step outside his own cloudy head in order to think.

It was truly a sad experience for me, but probably a real bummer for him to. I forgot my own advice, 'Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and it annoys the pig".

#13 | Posted by kudzu at 2016-11-27 12:23 PM | Reply

"their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them."

If you've been around intelligent, accomplished people, and still believe their main skill is capacity is to pass exams, you're an idiot.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 12:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Most of my adult life, few have had a formal 4 year education, but most above me in intellectual prowess were superior in actual intellect and common sense.

We as a nation have changed our "emotional" intellectual value of who is smart and educated by the schooling they have had and equate it to intelligence, but far and away that is naïve.

#15 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-11-27 12:43 PM | Reply

Being educated means having an education. It doesn't guarantee having exceptional intelligence or common sense.

But in general, educational attainment correlates to higher intelligence. People who are smarter are more likely to get a degree or advanced degree.

Educational attainment also correlates to higher income.

From the time my kids were little, my wife and I prioritized education. I think it's the best way to move up in our society, especially now that earning more than your parents did is no longer a given.

#16 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-27 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

The Intellectual Yet Idiot

What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking "clerks" and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.

https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.mqr9l668s

#17 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-27 01:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump keeps appointing billionaires to his Cabinet. They are the least likely people in the world to understand the concerns of common people.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-27 01:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#17 medium.com

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2016-11-27 01:49 PM | Reply

Trump keeps appointing billionaires to his Cabinet. They are the least likely people in the world to understand the concerns of common people.

#18 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2016-11-27 01:36 PM | FLAG:

We saw similar in Hillary prior to the election with her $30,000 dollar per plate dinners etc... She didn't do a good job of connecting with the common American. She did however do a good job of conveying to the common folks that if you didn't have a lot of money she didn't really care. Look at what Sanders did with $35 dollar contributions. His rallies were enormous and he spoke directly to those who needed change in government the most. Hilary appeared smug and uppity unable to find common ground with the peasants and still be able to back her rotten trade policies etc...

neither Hillary or Trump would be good for our country but i find it hard to be sympathetic to the Democrats after we watched the primary.

"Them's the rules"!!! is what I was told here numerous times about the shady DNC practices and the cheating. They used the rules to usher in that rotten candidate and now the rules of the EC don't fit their agenda. Karma.

#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-27 02:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#17 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Nulli, how are you?

I think you are identifying some type of 'intellectual elitism'?

Some of the greatest people that have driven human development have been intellectual elitists (Confucius, Plato, Ghandi, the American Founding Fathers, etc...), so it seems logical that the problem lies elsewhere (to me at least).

It occurs to me that a million dollars will buy the same amount of gold faucets for the intellectual elitist as it will buy for the economic elitist.

I doubt poor people will be able to tell the difference. I only know that when our country causes a majority of poor people to exist in a democracy, then we will get the government they prefer.

#22 | Posted by kudzu at 2016-11-27 02:33 PM | Reply

These, unfortunately are the only qualities that matter when the Democrats look for leadership... not skill.

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Says a Trump supporter. LOL

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I think the primary distinction between someone who is intelligent and someone who is educated is the intelligent person has the ability to objectively assess their views and change them upon integration of new information.

And I'm reminded every day on this site just how rare that trait is.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

We saw similar in Hillary prior to the election ...

Is bashing Hillary the only thing we'll hear for four years when Trump screws over the American people he claimed to champion?

Democrats do far better than Republicans at helping working people and the middle class. This was true of Obama and would've been true of Hillary as well. She raised big money from big donors because it takes big money to win elections. We can pretend otherwise, but it's the reality post Citizens United.

#25 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-27 03:20 PM | Reply

"would've been true of Hillary as well"

I have trouble believing that.

I wasn't so much bashing on her as stating what I saw during the campaign. What part was I wrong about?

#26 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-27 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I have trouble believing that.

I wasn't so much bashing on her as stating what I saw during the campaign. What part was I wrong about?

Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-27 03:24 PM | Reply

Hillary didn't care about the average Americans with her high dollar mansion fundraising and ignoring the plight of the working class as admitted by staffers and Bill Clinton himself.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2016-11-27 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Hillary didn't care about the average Americans"
~Laura

No she didn't. She did not connect with them and during the primary and there was a sense of entitlement for her nomination.

Its not bashing, its reality.

#28 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-27 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The paranoia demonstrated by the left prior
to the election insisting Trump assure them
of his "Acceptance of the Election results"
when Hillary dominated was very telling.
Reversed by an overwhelming turn-around should
we then not expect the DFL to assure America
the exact form of acceptance?

#29 | Posted by hobart at 2016-11-27 03:35 PM | Reply

"Hillary didn't care about the average Americans"

Whereas Trump did?

Any idiot believing that should read his tax plan, and his infrastructure plan.

Clearly, when DJT said "Only I can fix it", he meant fix as in "The fix is in."

It'll be "fixed" all right. If Trump gets his way, fat cats will get fatter.

Oh, and that promised "massive tax cut" for the middle class? Less than $1.60/day. Wanna guess how much Little Donnie saves?

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 03:42 PM | Reply

"Hillary didn't care about the average Americans"
Whereas Trump did?

#30 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2016-11-27 03:42 PM | FLAG:

Trump was a middle finger to the establishment. Obama said it best in Greece at a press conference when he was asked about the election results in a mannar that pointed to him as being a reason that Hillary lost. His answer was basically that Americans are afraid of globalization. Trump over and over again brought up trade agreements and bringing work back to the states, taxing corporations that make cheap ---- overseas and bring it back home without penalties.

He got out and connected with the little man that hasn't been heard in years. Hillary didn't. wether or not he actually does anything for them remains to be seen.

I never was a Trump supporter but I never was a Hillary supporter. I couldn't get past either candidate as being a decent alternative to the other.

#31 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-27 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Trump was a middle finger to the establishment."

That's not the same as caring about average Americans.

In fact, based on his appointees and plans, Trump is giving a middle finger to YOU. Any faux concern he exhibited is just that. As far as Trump is concerned, your part of the con is over.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 04:03 PM | Reply

"taxing corporations that make cheap ---- overseas and bring it back home without penalties. "

Sucker.

DJT was one of the leaders of that movement. The only thing he's going to do is make sure his rich buddies can repatriate the money at the lowest possible rates.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 04:05 PM | Reply

"That's not the same as caring about average Americans"

I understand what you're saying. I was simply pointing out the "why" he beat her.

#34 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-27 04:05 PM | Reply

"Sucker"

That wouldn't be me. I didn't vote for the man. I never bought into anything he was peddling. I was simply pointing out why DJT beat Hillary. Well those things and Hillary's baggage from the dishonesty in the way she was running the SOS position. Avoiding FIOA, having a private server at her home to conduct State business.

#35 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-27 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I didn't vote for the man."

Strange...the voting tally seems to disagree.

"Avoiding FIOA, having a private server at her home to conduct State business."

What a croc. Nothing HRC did comes close to what DJT has vowed to do, or done, for that matter.

You voted for Trump. Own it.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 04:14 PM | Reply

His answer was basically that Americans are afraid of globalization.

Americans don't understand globalization. They think we can stop supporting it and only good things will happen. If we start trade wars and protectionism they will suddenly see the price of everything go up and freak out. Then we'll see a lot of jobs lost in the U.S. in industries that relied on free trade.

#37 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-27 04:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Strange...the voting tally seems to disagree"

by that logic you voted for Trump too.

#38 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-27 04:35 PM | Reply

"Americans don't understand globalization"

I think they understand it well enough to know they're not getting a fair shake in whats going on.

#39 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-27 04:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"by that logic you voted for Trump too."

No, your ballot has the box for Trump darkened in.

Mine doesn't.

I'm beginning to understand why you thought the guy sending jobs overseas would be good for American jobs.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 04:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You voted for Trump. Own it.

#36 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2016-11-27 04:14 PM | FLAG:

Thats ridiculous.

I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump and thats my choice. But somehow it makes Hillary supporters feel better to blame people like me.

"A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else"

~John Burroughs

#41 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-11-27 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think they understand it well enough to know they're not getting a fair shake in whats going on.

And yet we just had a day in which Americans flocked to stores by the millions for the consumer goods whose low prices are only possible through globalization.

I think Americans are not mindful of the whole picture. They think there's a solution so easy even a spastic tangerine gibbon could solve it.

#42 | Posted by rcade at 2016-11-27 04:50 PM | Reply

Rcade, America import 11% of it's goods. The cost to manufacture them in America is 10% higher. That's a one-time bump of 1.1% in inflation, in a deflationary economy.

#43 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 04:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That's a one-time bump of 1.1% in inflation, in a deflationary economy."

Nonsense. Your conclusion not only assumes ALL goods are imported, but that goods represent 100% of the economy.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 05:20 PM | Reply

#44 You fail at basic math. But you do win a participation trophy.

#45 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 05:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" You fail at basic math."

Um, no, I don't. In fact, I excelled at math, from a very early age. It was probably the main reason I skipped one grade, and was offered to skip another.

But by all means, please feel free to explain where I'm wrong, and you're right, and how something representing less than 100% of the economy can have a 100% effect.

This ought to be fun....

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 05:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

They are uneducated for a reason (and it's not completely their fault)....

...It's mostly their fault.

As long as funding of primary and secondary schools is local, there's an ugly cycle almost guaranteeing that poorer folks don't get the same educational opportunities. That's on top of the fact that over 20% of U.S. children live in poverty, and poor childhood nutrition (not to mention contaminated water) is associated with irreversible cognitive impairment.

#47 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-11-27 05:34 PM | Reply

I think they understand it well enough to know they're not getting a fair shake in whats going on.

#39 | Posted by lfthndthrds

This is a core problem on most of the major issues.

American's "think" they understand it when they don't have a clue.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2016-11-27 05:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#46 You have 100 pennies. 11 of those pennies came from your friends and enemies. If the cost to borrow those pennies was 10%, you would be out 1.1 pennies. See?

#49 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 05:45 PM | Reply

#49
That's not how inflationary math works.

You still haven't shown how goods make up 100% of the economy, or how 100% of goods are imported.

Trust me: smoke, mirrors, and bullhockey won't work. Use the import model you've already proposed.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 05:49 PM | Reply

#50 Let's hear your model, Mr. Macroeconomics.

I'm telling you 11% of goods are imported, and if their price rises by 10%, overall inflation goes up 1.1%.

#51 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 06:01 PM | Reply

"I'm telling you 11% of goods are imported, and if their price rises by 10%, overall inflation goes up 1.1%."

And I'm telling you, you're wrong.

You haven't adjusted for the less-than-100% amount of the economy "goods" represent. There are other aspects as well you've missed.

So far, you haven't shown the acumen to pass an Econ 101 midterm.

Try again.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 06:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Let's hear your model, Mr. Macroeconomics."

You made the claim, pal. You provide the proof, or retract the claim.

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 06:06 PM | Reply

I just did provide the proof.

#54 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 06:09 PM | Reply

#52 I made an "A" in college Macroeconomics. But seriously, what is the highest math course you ever took?

#55 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 06:10 PM | Reply

"I just did provide the proof."

No you didn't. You failed to account for the most salient aspects, including adjusting your goods number to have it jibe with goods as a percentage of the economy. If you're not even going to understand that concept, I don't want to waste any more time on you.

"I made an "A" in college Macroeconomics."

Good for you! I taught economics at the collegiate level, and run a tax and financial business with over 400 clients, currently in its 29th year.

So far, you're carrying an "F". Go back and recheck your work.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 06:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In addition, you won't get a passing grade until you correct your error(s), and bring in at least one more mitigating factor before coming to your numerical conclusion.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 06:24 PM | Reply

#56 OK, professor, in your opinion what would the inflation numbers look like?

#58 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 06:25 PM | Reply

Not until you admit you don't have a clue.

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 06:26 PM | Reply

#59 OK, yer a troll. That was my clue. Bye.

#60 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 06:34 PM | Reply

[...] FTW: This idiot didn't adjust for the percentage "goods" is in the economy. Even if we go with 75%, that reduces his inflationary claim by 25%.

In addition, any time prices rise, there will be a correlating increase in competition, since the comparative margins for the local products have increased, allowing more competitors into the market. Because of that, no increase is 100% of its seeming value. This is a part of The Theory of Elasticity.
en.wikipedia.org(economics)

The correct answer, in this case, would be (1.1 * .75), less any adjustment for increased competition.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I taught economics at the collegiate level"

In college, to college students. What would you call it?

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 06:44 PM | Reply

#64
Feel free to jump in and show where he was right and I was wrong.

Oh, right...you've got nothing.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 06:56 PM | Reply

#65 And yer still a troll. You could have mentioned that much earlier. So what you are saying is that there is almost no impact at all on inflation. Well, that's great. Rcade will love to hear it.

#68 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 07:15 PM | Reply

"You could have mentioned that much earlier."

Gee, before, or after you denigrated me and claimed you DID provide proof, when you didn't.

"So what you are saying is that there is almost no impact at all on inflation."

No, I'm not saying that at all. I was just pointing out you were missing the most important adjustment factors, and your basic assumptions were off.

"And yer still a troll."

I wasn't trolling you at all. You're just embarrassed.

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 07:23 PM | Reply

It was a back-of-an-envelope calculation, professor. That should be obvious. Now stop trolling.

#70 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 07:27 PM | Reply

"It was a back-of-an-envelope calculation, professor. That should be obvious."

And after I pointed out how you were oversampling for goods, you should have changed it.

Or realized you were wrong.

That should be obvious.

And please research the meaning of "troll". It clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 07:32 PM | Reply

#71 I'm not a professor of economics. And since you offered no proof of your assertion, it's obvious you where trolling. And still are.

#72 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 07:40 PM | Reply

"since you offered no proof of your assertion"

Oh, I get it. You're so embarrassed, YOU'RE trolling.

"I'm not a professor of economics."

No shitake, Sherlock. But I bet you're really proud of that participation trophy "A".

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 07:43 PM | Reply

#73 All you had to do was explain yourself, brainiac. Which you didn't.

#74 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-27 08:04 PM | Reply

"Which you didn't."

Yes, I did, when you were in the middle of your touchdown dance regarding your "A" in Macro.

Meanwhile, you thought it'd be fun to throw a punch, and you ended up getting your clock cleaned.

Nice werk!

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 08:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#74 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

As you stated, Danforth proved your point for you, you should thank him.....

In college, to college students. What would you call it?
#63 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

A waste of time....

"Economics" works in the theoretical. In reality it just doesn't work, if it did everything would be dialed in. Danforth dials in .75 and 1.1 and other numbers, the reality is he doesn't know because it "depends", upon some "competition index". It depends upon if the 10% increase/tariff is on products that have no elasticity, like Boeing WINGS, and/or IPhones.

People act like Economics is science, like most social sciences, its intellectual but idiotic when faced with the myriad of "depends". You were close enough, but Danforth had to show his "superior" intellect, but in reality its a paycheck, without teaching college people anything about the real world.....

The 'Laws of Economics' Don't Exist
www.theatlantic.com

But don't tell Danforth's employer.

#76 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-11-27 08:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

" Danforth dials in .75 and 1.1 and other numbers, the reality is he doesn't know because it "depends""

You're absolutely right. There are many factors. I was simply using the parameters given to me by the claimant.

"You were close enough..."

Sorry, over 25% off isn't "close enough", at least not in real life.

"...but Danforth had to show his "superior" intellect."

Awwww, thanks. But Heliumrat deserves the credit for making it so easy.

"But don't tell Danforth's employer."

The college gig was before I opened my own business. My employer is the guy in my mirror.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 08:35 PM | Reply

"It depends upon if the 10% increase/tariff is on products that have no elasticity, like Boeing WINGS, and/or IPhones."

No elasticity? If you believe an iPhone price increase of, say, 50% wouldn't effect Samsung's sales, you can sit in the corner with Heliumrat.

You'll have to share the cap, however.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 08:39 PM | Reply

"Danforth proved your point for you,"

How, exactly, was that?

#79 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-27 08:40 PM | Reply

Yer a real work of art, Danforth. Don't ever change.

#80 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-11-28 12:41 AM | Reply

Gee, four hours later, and you're still butt-hurt.

Don't ever change.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 12:47 AM | Reply

The laws of economics do not exist but failed theories of economics do. Trickle down, supply side economics, we know fails every time. On the other hand, generally speaking Keynesian economics has served us well. To deny that is to deny that the sun rises. Supply side really only got the opportunity to destroy millions of jobs and lives because of "stagflation," which was the normal response to large war debt. Germany used it in the 30's, America used it post Vietnam. We sent 500,000 troops to S. Vietnam, we sent B-52s on hundreds of sorties, we had aircraft carrier groups off shore to fight against N. Vietnam and the Chinese over a piece of real estate that was virtually unimportant. Only because they had voted to embrace an ideology we didn't like and, face it, we lost. There was a huge cost associated and "stagflation" was one attempt to deal with that cost. Did we, as Americans, think we could do that for free? So, we unelected Carter and installed Reagan, who to this day is honored for his service to America by the right, but who committed treason to help get the job and then tripled our debt after he got it. That debt is basically, our Vietnam war costs. America chose to not pay them in taxes so we, instead, paid them with debt. Subsequent wars have brought more debt. Do you think the Iraq war was free, and realize, George W. Bush slashed taxes at the same time we were invading. There are no laws of economics but there are reliable ideas, one of the most basic is that when you go to war it costs a lot of money. When you pretend otherwise you incur huge debt. That's not a law, it's common sense.

#82 | Posted by danni at 2016-11-28 01:21 AM | Reply

You guys crack me up talking about math and economics. As probably the only one here that actually works as a professional economic data collector, Danforth is right, GOODS don't make up for 100 percent of the economy. We are mostly a service-driven economy, for which cannot be outsourced. I don't buy the 11 percent number anyway, I think the margin is much higher on outsourced goods, but I'd be willing to see a source to prove me wrong. Mackris's assertion is, as per usual idiotic. You can't just say everything you disagree with is not true. Economics is not a perfect science by any means, and it is usually a chicken-or-egg argument. But, there is a reason Wall Street and the people who manage your 401k listen to economists and economic indicators that are my profession.

#83 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-28 02:21 AM | Reply

My goodness so many professional economists on the DR.

being a economist is like saying your a witch doctor except the witch doctor is just a tiny bit more reliable

#84 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-11-28 02:35 AM | Reply

But, there is a reason Wall Street and the people who manage your 401k listen to economists and economic indicators that are my profession.

#83 | POSTED BY BOCAINK AT 2016-11-28 02:21 AM | FLAG:

There's also a reason people made billions betting against the mainstream beliefs of economists every time a bubble collapses.

#85 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-11-28 08:05 AM | Reply

Economics is the only field in which two people can get a Nobel Prize for saying exactly the opposite thing.

#86 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-11-28 08:40 AM | Reply

A bubble is how much people believe in a sales-job, it's a pretty obvious result of a massively connected consumer-driven culture. It's not some inherent flaw in the science of Economics.

#87 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-11-28 12:24 PM | Reply

When did the nation become recognized as divided and dissatisfied?
Before the primaries, during, after, before the election or after?

No matter who you how you put it, if you believe the nation is both, President Obama did not unite. No hope or change

#88 | Posted by Petrous at 2016-11-28 05:22 PM | Reply

"President Obama did not unite."

Well, "If he's for it, we're against it" certainly didn't help.

"No hope or change"

Give me 41 Senators, and let me blame you for everything I've stopped. Easiest job in the world.

#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-28 05:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My employer is the guy in my mirror.

#77 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2016-11-27 08:35 PM

So he is also your lover...or just likes to watch you shave?

#90 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2016-11-28 05:40 PM | Reply

No matter who you how you put it, if you believe the nation is both, President Obama did not unite. No hope or change

#88 | Posted by Petrous

The division that occurred under obama was not his fault. As soon as he was elected racists and morons lost their collective minds, and never found them again.

He didn't have a magic wand to tap their bigoted heads and undo thousands of hours of fox news and rush limbaugh, plus all the racism they hear around the house, locker room, and taproom.

We were united after 9/11.
We became divided when bush invaded iraq, and turned america into an evil stupid aggressive torturing country. Decent people were appalled to belong to a country that would do these things, and angry at their fellow citizens who they realized were too stupid to care or see what was happening.
We became more divided under obama, but not because of anything obama did, except for being black and president at the same time.
Now with trump, the division is far worse. Not just racial, but idiots vs intellectuals. Funny how even conservatives can choose not to see that all the idiots are standing next to them, but they're unwilling to call it what it is. IDIOCRACY.

#91 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-11-28 07:39 PM | Reply

Trump won due to a divided dissatisfied nation.

#92 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-11-29 11:57 AM | Reply

I am so tired of this "elite" BS discussion.

The facts are not complicated. If you vote against your own self interests you are an idiot, plain and simple. Call me an elitist or out of touch, I don't care because I am right.

For example ANY single parent who voted or supported Trump is an idiot, plain and simple. They will get screwed royally by Trump. Eliminating Head of Household designation will cost you thousands of dollars per year-as it will me. This wont be compensated through "new jobs" at all. To compensate for the higher taxes would require a single parent to get an increase in income of 10's of thousands of dollars just to break even-AINT GONNA HAPPEN.

You don't have to be educated or intelligent to understand that. To willfully ignore that is to the definition of idiocy.

Deflect all you want to Hillary-but I can guarantee this would not be her tax policy. Her 1st announced policy would not be to DISMANTLE Dodd-Frank.

#93 | Posted by truthhurts at 2016-11-29 12:31 PM | Reply

A quick example

For a person making $70,000 per year eliminating the HoH category would have resulted (in 2015) in a tax increase from 11,829 to 13,300 or an increase of $1,471.

To compensate for an increase of $1,471 in your taxes you would need an approximate increase in income of $7,750=AINT GONNA HAPPEN

SOOOO if you are a single parent you will pay significantly more taxes~12.5%. Idiots

#94 | Posted by truthhurts at 2016-11-29 12:37 PM | Reply

You voted for Trump. Own it.

#36 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2016-11-27 04:14 PM | FLAG:

You voted for Hillary, she lost along with the Democratic party across the country, get over it and stop whining. It's getting old.

#95 | Posted by fishpaw at 2016-11-29 12:41 PM | Reply

"stop whining."

Haven't whined once, and won't.

I'm simply basking the in the fact Republicans were so willing to give up so many talking points to nominate and elect Trump. They've forever lost arguments against any Dem nominee on family values, Constitutional respect, governing experience, foreign intervention, deficit concern, crony capitalism, and election fraud.

I'm sure there are more in that list, and more to come.

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-11-29 12:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's getting old.

#95 | Posted by fishpaw at 2016-11-29 12:41 PM | Reply

No it's not. Everything's just started. Donald's not going to stop being a crazy SOB just because he has high office.

Looking forward to the day when you, personally, feel enough pain to do a little whining on your own.

#97 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-29 01:06 PM | Reply

Trump won due to a divided dissatisfied nation.

#92 | Posted by MSgt

Trump won due to a failing public school system replaced by fox news propaganda.

That's why millions were too stupid to recognize a dangerous autocrat egomaniac, despite having many historical examples in the past. And why millions thought mexican immigrants and ISIS are a bigger threat than climate change.

Trump won because america's percentage of stupid people has passed the tipping point where their damage can be limited by the intelligent people.

#98 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-11-29 01:07 PM | Reply

"Trump won because america's percentage of stupid people has passed the tipping point where their damage can be limited by the intelligent people"

The Americans you really need to worry about are both those who are brilliant with their stupidity and stupid with their intelligence.

#99 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2016-11-29 01:23 PM | Reply

The Americans you really need to worry about are both those who are brilliant with their stupidity and stupid with their intelligence.

#99 | Posted by pumpkinhead

Yeah we just elected one.

#100 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2016-11-29 01:24 PM | Reply

That's why millions were too stupid to recognize a dangerous autocrat egomaniac

#98 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

What's funny is that I know that most of them would have seen Donald as such had they never seen him of TV and they never knew his name. They'd use the word "-------" as a descriptive.

#101 | Posted by Zed at 2016-11-29 01:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort